* The proposed designer is explicitly identified. * Ascribing design to the artifacts is done by identifying, analyzing and reproducing the methods the designers might have used, along with demonstrating that naturally modified items of the same composition do not share the same characteristics. * Multiple independent lines of evidence support the assertion that the artifacts are designed. Not only are the modifications identified as non-natural, uses are proposed and identified. * Abstract concepts like CSI or the "information content" of designed artifacts are not used.

So FTK:ID proponents like to use archeology as an example of design detection, but why doesn't real world design detection look anything like ID theory ? Why can't these archeologists just calculate the CSI of those pigment blocks and run it through the 'nixplanatory filter ?

Oh, alright at last a subject I can really sink my teeth into. Come on FTK, let's talk archaeology method and theory. I'll even give you bonus points if you include mention of the paradigms developed by Binford and Schiffer!

--------------Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

Strip out the ID bullshit and what we are really detecting is human activity. We can detect human activity, past and present, because we are intimately familiar with human activity and its characteristics. The analogy to ID fails because we know nothing whatsoever about the purported "designer" or it's characteristics.

Simple as that.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

I would be surprised if FTK showed up and had a go at the question. For FTK to discuss anything she needs to be able to swipe it from the works of others (Brown, Luskin, Dembski, etc). Problem is, other than to make a few vague analogies, IDists have been surprisingly mute on the subject. I expect stevestory is right when he questions the value of a separate thread. A hominin can still hope though...

--------------Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

Not sure, but I think a case can be made. If the case rests solely upon Ftk's participation, then no. However, I think the topic goes well beyond Ftk.

Why do IDiots gravitate toward archeology and forensic science? What makes them think the comparison is accurate? Where are the blindspots (besides the obvious tardity) that make them unable to filter human activity (which leads them to their CSI bullshit)?

I'm not sure it doesn't deserve its own thread, i just thought you meant this to be a topic for ftk when you ended the post with

Quote

So FTK:ID proponents like to use archeology as an example of design detection, but why doesn't real world design detection look anything like ID theory ? Why can't these archeologists just calculate the CSI of those pigment blocks and run it through the 'nixplanatory filter ?

If it's supposed to be a serious exploration of why why scientists, historians, forensic specialists, etc don't use Dembski's absurd method, then that's an interesting question deserving of its own thread, but not one which ftk really has the ability to understand or discuss.

Oh, I don't expect FTK to respond (not coherently anyway...) I only posted the original in FTKs thread and addressed it to her because I can't yet start new ones, and it seemed like a good thing to bash her about the head with.

It's bugged me for a long time that ID proponents claim scientists do use "design inference" (along with their stupid "what if aliens found Mount Rushmore" line), completely ignoring the fact that such inferences are based very specific evidence, not some vague handwaving about information theory. This seemed like a clear, accessible illustration of the difference.

To push the point a bit further, one could speculate how these blocks of manganese dioxide would be interpreted if found somewhere not associated with human activity. Would we "detect design" at all, or would we just go "hmm, that's strange" and file it away ? ID seems to claim that design is detectable regardless of context, where real science depends a great deal on it.

But perhaps one of our other resident ID enthusiasts (LCD, R o' B ?) would like explain why I've got it all wrong. I suggest not looking at Reciprocating Bills post, as it contains spoilers

Strip out the ID bullshit and what we are really detecting is human activity. We can detect human activity, past and present, because we are intimately familiar with human activity and its characteristics. The analogy to ID fails because we know nothing whatsoever about the purported "designer" or it's characteristics.

Simple as that.

Oh yeah? Well, what if humans are made in the image of teh Designer designer? Then His his designs would resemble our own and we could detect them, couldn't we?

What do you say now, Mr. Smarty Pants?

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Strip out the ID bullshit and what we are really detecting is human activity. We can detect human activity, past and present, because we are intimately familiar with human activity and its characteristics. The analogy to ID fails because we know nothing whatsoever about the purported "designer" or it's characteristics.

Simple as that.

Oh yeah? Well, what if humans are made in the image of teh Designer designer? Then His his designs would resemble our own and we could detect them, couldn't we?

What do you say now, Mr. Smarty Pants?

I'm sure Bill will come up with a vastly more erudite and complete answer than I will but I'll have a quick stab at one answer for you:

Follow the reasoning:

Axiom 1: We can detect human design because we are intimately familiar with human activity and characteristics.Axiom 2: Humans were made in the image of Teh Unspecificaterised Telic Entity.Proposition 1: From Axioms 1 and 2 we can therefore state that we should be able to detect the work of Teh Unspecificaterised Telic Entity as it is similar to that of humans.

However, taking further data into account:

1) Teh Unspecificaterised Telic Entity is much better than we lowly humans and its designs be gooooooood.

Therefore:

2) Examples of design that are not only sub optimal but actually worse than what a human would design serve as disconfirmation of Axiom 2.

So:

A human designer would never have put the testicles on the outside, within kicking distance. The testicles are on the outside well within the reach of a hobnailed boot.

Therefore:

Axiom 2 is false. Or at least needs modification to "Teh Unspecificaterised Telic Entity is a woman, and a mean one at that." In which case we should expect that the design of the universe changes roughly every twenty eight days for roughly 4 days or so to an environment specifically hostile to male H. sapiens. One that can inexplicably be made less hostile with Haagen Dazs.

Quod erat demonstratum.

Louis

P.S. Just in case some ID loon thinks I'm entirely serious, I'm not. The above is at least mildly tongue in cheek.

P.S. Just in case some ID loon thinks I'm entirely serious, I'm not. The above is at least mildly tongue in cheek.

Good point. I'd probably be wise to disavow my previous comment before Ftk decides that I'm a fellow cdesign proponentsist.

FTK makes a habit of misquoting people. One relatively entertaining example was when she reproduced a tongue in cheek post of mine at her website conveniently removing the P.S. which pointed out to her that it was a joke.

When she was called on this abject piece of dishonesty, she put the P.S. back in with the emphasis changed to suit her needs, despite the fact that I disavowed the emphasis she put on it and explained the humour therein.

I find it's best to stick such disclaimers on posts simply because of the limited nature of the written word. Body langauge, tone etc being almost impossible to convey through text alone. Also, it's funny when the terminally dishonest, like FTK, do something like I describe above. Kind of makes any point I might be making for me now doesn't it!

Anyway, enough comedy, back to the archaeology and good stuff. I'm looking forward to reading a discussion about Australopithicene anatomy. Not a subject I know a huge amount of detail about, so I'll be chuffed to read what those more expert chappies and chappesses produce as a spur to go and learn more.

Go you ahead archeologically learned folk. I think waiting for FTK (and even encouraging her participation in this thread) is a waste of everyone's time. She's manifestly not interested in learning anything, just reproducing creationist dogma as if it had something significant to say.

Yup. It's a good place to take in a show. Nice open courtyard that'll comfortably hold ~2000 (if I had to guess). There's decent grub too.

Nice. I've heard good things about the barbeque sauce.

Now I'm not saying that I am some ridiculous, sauce addicted, fat bastard*, but I have been tempted to make a deliberate pilgrimage completely informal and inconsequential journey when convenient to the USA to get some.